Same logic
-
It should be noted, that trans women don't appear to have a competitive advantage over cis women Source
For anyone who cares this is horrible logic that only superficially makes a point. Two things are true here... being rich is an advantage and the sex you were born can be an advantage when you compete against one of the sexes.
-
Mother fuckers won't give a shit about women's sports unless it's to police who participates
Depends on the sport in all honestly, some womans sports are more fun to watch than men's. I can't think of an example of hand though.
-
Found the Fortran dev
another reason for Javascript! Any gender is just [object Object] around here!
-
non binary
1,2
Where's the 0, solarvector? đ€š
Hah!
I'm not sure they'd understand that concept either.
-
Eh I think you would have a bigger point with someone like lance stroll, max definitely has a massive edge from all the karting but he is objectively someone with a natural talent that got those additional competitive advantages which has set him up to be a once and a generation type driver. Plus I kinda feel bad for max when you hear about the stories of his dad vicariously living through him as a kid and pushing him till his hands were cold and numb on the kart giving him like a 5 minute break to warm his hands slightly and then have him continue to do laps. But yeah modern f1 is a good example of a rich man's sport, the shear cost to get to the point of just the feeder series disqualifies so many people who could compete and be rivals to the likes of max but due to not having the funding from a young age they are just completely ineligible to even try to compete.
The argument isn't about kids of rich parents not having to work for a position in F1 or other sports, but about even getting the chance to be there.
If you are poor, there's no way to ever get into F1, even if you have perfect natural talent. You just won't be able to afford the training.
-
Kids who grow up in homes with proper nutrition run faster, jump higher, and hit harder. Their bones have never been sapped of calcium, their teeth never threatened with scurvy. It's not fair or safe to have them compete with malnourished kids who grew up eating fast food and tv dinners.
who grew up eating fast food and tv dinners
You must be pretty privileged if that's how you imagine poverty food
-
This is how I've been addressing it. Category error, because the current framing of sports is... Really dumb
Frankly most global level competition is just people flexing how make affordances people have. Imagine trying to ruin people's lives to protect the sacred structure of mild eugenics through some social hierarchy or another.
But if 'fairness' is the goal, then the wealthy would be a much more deserving population to nerf or exclude.
Not that I think sports and competition are not valid forms of practice and fun, but you're not as 'better' as you think because you had the resources to master an eco-niche that doesn't actually do anything other than give you monkey hierarchy feelings. You also shouldn't have the right to exclude people who make it hard to believe in that stupid oversimplified terrain that the preference style was built upon.
But TERFs and other bigots never got anywhere being thoughtful about others or the world they live in.
Tbh, top-level sports is unfair to the end. To get into it you need to have a combination of money and perfect genetics next to your training.
99+% of people could never compete in a given sport on top-level, no matter how much they train, because they just don't have the perfect body for the sport.
One big genetic marker that is necessary to compete in most top sports is being male.
So to make women's sports at all possible, that protected category of women's sports was created. As a protected category, there needs to be some kind of cut-off, and that cut-off is arbitrary and sucks. If you are 10 grams overweight in a weight limited category, your are also out. (Though it's easier to do something against 10g than against genetics and hormones, but you get my point.)
We need to stop viewing women's sports as some kind of "natural category", but as the protected category it is.
-
It should be noted, that trans women don't appear to have a competitive advantage over cis women Source
wrote on last edited by [email protected]women's height for tennis: 5'8"
any competitors not at that height are unable to compete because of unfair advantage. there is no deviation; height must be exactly 5'8" to the micrometer. thanks republicans! you saved women's tennis!
-
Somebody should just organize a "people's olympics" and ban all the rich people. It would get so much press.
Whose press?
-
Somebody should just organize a "people's olympics" and ban all the rich people. It would get so much press.
ban all the rich people
We could bracket them, like in boxing. Anyone who gets more than $1M in training goes into the B-tier. $10M goes to C-tier. Etc.
That said, back in the Soviet Era, you had a lot more money in public sports clubs, particularly internationally. The US, Canada, the UK, Russia, China, France, and Germany all had state sponsored athletics programs that sought out young athletes and bankrolled them. Only post-Soviet collapse have we seen western states turn the recruitment and training over to the private sector.
The neoliberalization of professional sports isn't the norm. It's a direct consequence of the 90s-era commercialization of athletics. Putting Tony Hawk on the box cover of Wheaties was the beginning of the end for any kind of public athletics program.
-
For anyone who cares this is horrible logic that only superficially makes a point. Two things are true here... being rich is an advantage and the sex you were born can be an advantage when you compete against one of the sexes.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]It's a bad faith argument that can only be accepted/made by the dishonest who desperately want it to be true and kind-hearted fools. But the demographics of Lemmy mean OP could only be praised and upvoted.
-
It should be noted, that trans women don't appear to have a competitive advantage over cis women Source
I see this argument made about transgender athletes so frequently and yet...
It's crazy, because professional athletics is absolutely rife with outright doping and edge-case medicalization. If you're a 12-year-old on a regiment of HGH, there's nothing that's going to separate you from a "naturally" big guy like André the Giant or Yao Ming in another ten years. You don't have to change your sex in order to enjoy a performance benefit from modern medicine. And, as the '00s-era of baseball demonstrates, nobody really cares so long as they get to see you pitch no-hitters or hit lots of home runs. So the idea that "changing your gender" is cheating runs afoul of all the folks who ahem stayed in their lane and still cheated and will most likely run circles around you in any competitive athletic setting.
Further, changing your gender either sets you out the gate as being at a disadvantage or sticks you with an enormous handicap relative to people who aren't in transition. Gender transition never actually improves your ability to compete in a sport. That's why you never actually saw the "team of T-girls" cleaning up at softball or dominating the WNBA. You weren't seeing T-boys burst onto the scene in high school men's athletics as UIL champions. It was always some white boy comedy fantasy or cartoon show punchline.
Finally, the very idea of "fairness" in professional athletics, from a physical individual perspective is absurd. People aren't the same. Nobody is expecting them to be the same. We aren't demanding people under 5' to play professional basketball or people coming in under 100 lbs to compete as linemen in the NFL.
It's always been bullshit, top to bottom. Just something for people to scream at, because Cracker Barrel hadn't changed their logo yet.
-
And even then they don't watch it.
Let the people who play the sports decide the rules. What kind of moron thinks governments should be deciding sports?
The party of âsmall governmentâ.
-
who grew up eating fast food and tv dinners
You must be pretty privileged if that's how you imagine poverty food
Id agree. I grew up poor and we definitely do fast food or tv dinners. Beans and rice. Saving fat from meats. Sleep for dinner. Cabbage and rice or sometimes if youre lucky, cabbage and sausage.
Made me real good with seasonings though.
-
Somebody should just organize a "people's olympics" and ban all the rich people. It would get so much press.
Do you mean something like this?
wiki: International Workers' Olympiads -
Somebody should just organize a "people's olympics" and ban all the rich people. It would get so much press.
Do you mean something like this?
wiki: International Workers' Olympiads -
For anyone who cares this is horrible logic that only superficially makes a point. Two things are true here... being rich is an advantage and the sex you were born can be an advantage when you compete against one of the sexes.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]There's no research that proves AGAB has anything to do with athletic advantages
-
who grew up eating fast food and tv dinners
You must be pretty privileged if that's how you imagine poverty food
They didnât specify poverty, you can be malnourished without being in poverty. Especially on a typical American diet.
-
Tbh, top-level sports is unfair to the end. To get into it you need to have a combination of money and perfect genetics next to your training.
99+% of people could never compete in a given sport on top-level, no matter how much they train, because they just don't have the perfect body for the sport.
One big genetic marker that is necessary to compete in most top sports is being male.
So to make women's sports at all possible, that protected category of women's sports was created. As a protected category, there needs to be some kind of cut-off, and that cut-off is arbitrary and sucks. If you are 10 grams overweight in a weight limited category, your are also out. (Though it's easier to do something against 10g than against genetics and hormones, but you get my point.)
We need to stop viewing women's sports as some kind of "natural category", but as the protected category it is.
One big genetic marker that is necessary to compete in most top sports is being male.
Pump the brakes, because you are making a lot of assumptions that make sports worse for women. Including:
- that male and female are perfectly distinct categories that everyone fits into
- that everyone can be categorized into male or female based on their gender history or a âsex testâ
- that everyone put in the male category has an advantage over everyone in the female category
- that everyone sorted as female needs to be protected from intrusion of everyone sorted as male
- that hormones have no effect on performance of people in either category
These arenât based in anything but anxieties and hearsay, and trying to enforce them will inherently affect far more cis women than trans women, because cis women outnumber trans women by an absolute fuckton.
-
It should be noted, that trans women don't appear to have a competitive advantage over cis women Source
I am not literate enough to understand what the study is saying so I am ready for all ELI5 but I am a 20 year old Cis guy, 183cm and 85kgs. Say I start taking estrogen for 5 years. I will still retain my height and weight, maybe the muscle density would decrease but my bone density wouldn't? isn't there a bone and muscle density difference between male and female, and I have heard athletes say that sometimes strength boils down to the ligaments and tendons rather than muscles. I'd still say I'd be stronger than 90%+ of women when now I am sure I am stronger than 95%+, without any extreme fitness training.
Once again I am only asking because I don't know and I am not transphobe or someone with rigid opinions
